Slashdot Mirror


8 Million Year Old Bacteria Thaws, Lives

Jamie found a New Scientist story about 8 million year old bacteria that scientists thawed out, and now it's alive. Also somehow they are sure that this is safe. The interesting bit is that since these samples came from ancient ice, it seems that the world will naturally be filled with these guys soon.

12 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. Tons of ice thaw naturally all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...which is why this is safe. Same reason particle physics experiments are safe: even higher-energetic particles hit the earth all the time.

  2. Summary dies, needs resusitation. by lottameez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, that was a terrible summary. The reason the scientists think it's okay and not dangerous is because the process of old ice melting and bacteria being reintroduced happens all the time.

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    --
    Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
  3. Mars! by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If bacteria can survive that long, and I'm sure longer, this means there is a good chance that there may be life on planets with ice in our solar system. All we have to do is go find it!

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  4. Re:Typical misleading summary... by AndersOSU · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Furthermore, the bacteria in question is almost certainly safe because it evolved 4 mya, in the ocean, in the absence of humans, and likely in absence of a dense population of mammals of any kind. Now ask yourself, how many bacteria are there, and how many are harmful to humans. Further, probe how the few harmful strains became that way, and you'll find that they almost all developed as a result of centuries to millennia of interaction with dense populations of humans and other domesticated animals. The likelihood of a bacteria isolated from humans that is harmful to humans is so small as to be negligible. We might as well be worried about pushing asteroids off course...

  5. Re:Typical misleading summary... by Kamots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We'd be a lot better served by real discussions"

    Indeed.

    But there is no possibility of real discussions so long as one party to the discussions refuses to acknowledge that there is a potential problem. The preponderance of evidence says that global warming is happening and that it is anthropogenic.

    What should be done about that? Anything?

    Who knows... there hasn't been an opportunity to discuss that. Instead, all of the efforts made by the non-fanatics has been focused on attempting to educate the large proportion of the population who are sadly actively working at remaining ignorant in an attempt to completely ignore the issue by denying that there is an issue.

    If you really want real discussion, then work at getting people to admit that global warming exists. Until that happens there can't be any discussion of what actions to take, or even if we should take any action at all.

  6. Re:Typical misleading summary... by greg_barton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Artificial change cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than natural change.

    So, by the same token, murder is no worse than someone falling off a ladder.

    Should we let the murderer go free, then?
  7. Re:You're right by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did it really not occur to you that by being a smug, self-righteous, arrogant prick in your response you were validating his point of view? Or was that what you were trying to do?

    -Peter

  8. Re:Typical misleading summary... by goldspider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But there is no possibility of real discussions so long as one party to the discussions refuses to acknowledge that there is a potential problem.

    And I think that what you said there supports his whole point, that one party refuses to acknowledge that there may not be a problem.

    He never denied that climate change is hapening, nor that we aren't contributing to it. Enough with the strawmen, and respond to what he actually said next time.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  9. Wrong Focus by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think posters are getting too hung up on the "prehistoric killer bacteria" story and not the fact that something frozen for 8 million years can be thawed and live again (not sure how new this news is). So, we could potentially have a solar system filled with seeder asteroids (meteoroids?) from massive impacts with Earth or an older life-bearing Mars.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  10. Re:Typical misleading summary... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ever wonder why there are so many global warming deniers? It's because of the attitude taken by fanatic, self-righteous global warming alarmists. We'd be a lot better served by real discussions - which are, unfortunately, far too complex for most people on either side of the "political" global warming debate to understand - than one alarmist global warming story after another.
    First of all, I'd say there are two types of global warming deniers. There are the oil industry shills, whose job it is to make sure that the industrialized world continues to use oil as long as possible so that their already extraordinary profits keep rising. Then there are the pseudo-skeptics, who just want to feel special by seeming to take a contrary position.

    I don't give a shit about politics, about Al Gore, about Green Peace or a pack of greasy university kids marching to save the planet. What I do care about is that the vast majority of climatologists, while rejecting some of the doomsday notions of the activists, state very clearly that the evidence for climate change being caused by human activities is compelling and growing. To call these scientists "political" is nothing more than an invokation of a conspiracy theory.
    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Why not? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also somehow they are sure that this is safe.

    Everything to which the bacteria had adapted is 8 million years dead.

    Poor little feller... :(

  12. Re:Typical misleading summary... by Hardhead_7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The preponderance of evidence in the 1400's said that the world was flat and that sea monsters ate you if you took your boat too close to the edge.


    No, that was the popular opinion. In the 1400s, most scientists believed the Earth was round. I think you unintentionally drew a parallel.